4.7 Article

Renal cell carcinoma in relation to cigarette smoking: Meta-analysis of 24 studies

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 114, Issue 1, Pages 101-108

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.20618

Keywords

kidney cancer; RCC; tobacco; primary tobacco smoke; tobacco dose-response; smoking cessation

Categories

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [K01 ES00358] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for 3% of adult deaths from cancer. The risk factors for its development are still under intense investigation. Although tobacco smoke is a risk factor, the data are inconsistent and the extent of the increased risk is unclear. Estimates from 19 case-control and 5 cohort studies were used. The case-control reports included 8,032 cases and 13,800 controls: the cohort estimates were based on 1,457,754 participants with 1,326 cases of RCC. The relative risk (RR) for RCC for ever smokers as compared to lifetime never smokers was 1.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.50). The RR for male smokers was 1.54 (95 % CI = 1.42-1.68) and for female smokers was 1.22 (95 % Cl = 1.09-1.36). For men and women there was a strong dose-dependent increase in risk. Ever smoker men who had smoked 1-9, 10-20 or 21 or more cigarettes/day had a RR of 1.60 (95% CI = 1.21-2.12), 1.83 (95% CI = 1.30-2.57), or 2.03 (95% Cl = 1.51-2.74), respectively. For women, the relative risks were 0.98 (95% CI = 0.71-1.35), 1.38 (95 % CI = 0.90 -2.11), or 1.58 (95 % CI = 1.14-2.20), respectively. The advantages of smoking cessation were confirmed by a reduction in RR for those who had quit smoking for >10 years as compared to those who had quit for 1-10 years. Inhaled tobacco smoke is clearly implicated in the etiology of RCC, with a strong dose-dependent increase in risk associated with numbers of cigarettes smoked per day and a substantial reduction in risk for long-term former smokers. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss. Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available